ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2025
Research priorities for faecal incontinence in adults: A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.
Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Research priorities for faecal incontinence in adults: A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimFaecal incontinence (FI) is common, yet clinical guidelines rely on low-quality evidence or expert opinion. A high proportion of research is focused on areas that may not be considered a priority by patients or clinicians. This project aimed to identify the top 10 research priorities for FI in adults in equal collaboration with patients, carers and healthcare professionals in a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership (PSP).
methodsThis PSP followed established methodology supported by a multidisciplinary steering group including those with lived experience of FI. Evidence uncertainties were gathered through a survey with free-text responses, summarised in indicative summary questions and prioritised in a second survey. An independently facilitated priority setting workshop used a nominal group technique to reach consensus on the order of research priorities, with a focus on the top 10. At all stages the views of healthcare professionals and individuals with a lived experience of FI were considered equally.
resultsAfter the initial survey, 512 respondents submitted 991 evidence uncertainties. These produced 54 indicative summary questions. In the second survey, 373 respondents generated a shortlist of 26 questions. Finally, the top 10 research priorities were determined by consensus at a face-to-face workshop and include unanswered questions concerning prevention, investigation, education, self-management and treatment of FI.
conclusionThis PSP has identified a comprehensive list of top research priorities, including items of importance to both healthcare professionals and individuals with a lived experience of FI. Researchers and funders should use these priorities to inform future work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.